But if individuals are not the basic fragments (the units to which we can most reduce our analysis), then what?
In my view, we would start to enter into psychobiological investigations of how, for example, genes make choices. However, if we were to reduce it to that level, as David Friedman rightly observed, the conclusions would be the same...
I—But would an analysis as sub-agents be better than an analysis as if they were the true agents? And why would they be subagents? Who would be the main causal agent?
II—Conclusions drawn from an analysis of utility theory through methodological individualism.
People aren’t the fundamental fragment. Quarks, or something are.
But if individuals are not the basic fragments (the units to which we can most reduce our analysis), then what?
In my view, we would start to enter into psychobiological investigations of how, for example, genes make choices. However, if we were to reduce it to that level, as David Friedman rightly observed, the conclusions would be the same...
Subagents? As I said
The conclusion that societies don’t exist, or the conclusion that people don’t exist? Or both?
I—But would an analysis as sub-agents be better than an analysis as if they were the true agents? And why would they be subagents? Who would be the main causal agent?
II—Conclusions drawn from an analysis of utility theory through methodological individualism.
II so if you assume individualism, you conclude individualism?
But I was taking “that level” in “if we were to reduce it to that level” to mean the subagent level.